From Sebastian Hayes
M. Bell argues that science is independent of great names while religion is not (7 March, p 24). Certainly, other intelligent beings would develop science of a kind, but there is no reason for it to have much in common with, say, Newton’s billiard-ball vision of the universe. Newton’s view was specific to the time and place where it originated. It was also erroneous: for instance, “atoms” are not indivisible.
By contrast, it is possible to claim a universality of religious attitude. Religion is more concerned with human behaviour than truth. All the major religions promote an attitude of awe towards the creator of the physical universe and an attitude of unselfish concern for our fellow human beings.
The extent to which believers actually put into practice these high principles is, of course, a different matter, but this is also true of so-called “scientific objectivity”.
Shaftesbury, Dorset, UK
